site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31615 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 16, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm not that familiar with the whole Watergate scandal, but you've never seen anyone in a situation where even telling the truth would end up looking like they're refusing to stop digging their own hole?

What would he say, and why would anyone believe him?

What's an example of a scenario where someone telling the truth looked (at least at the time) like they were digging their own hole?

Ages ago, during some twitter spat, an NYT journalist sent a screenshot because he was trying to prove something. Unfortunately for him, that screenshot included a browser tab of a hentai website, which lots of people started commenting on. He defended himself by saying he was just trying to prove to his wife that tentacle porn exists, because she found the idea so bizarre. He even ended up sending screenshots of the conversation with her.

Now, imagine the conversation took place only verbally, and face to face, and there were no screenshots to send. Wouldn't "I swear, I wasn't fapping to it, I just wanted to show it to my wife!", sound like the dumbest excuse someone invented on the spot?

To bring it back to Nixon, curious_straight_ca's recommendation of "Wait! I know who shot JFK! The same people are after me!" would have the same result, unless his evidence was bulletproof.

The best I can piece together is that Kurt Eichenwald claimed to have received an anti-semitic flyer. Someone doubted his story and he tried to "prove" it by posting a photo of it. If the suspicion is that he faked the flyer, I don't know what posting a photo of a flyer proves (color printers exist after all). The Hentai tab is not relevant to the authenticity of the flyer.

If the phenomena you're describing ("be careful about exposing the truth because you might end up digging a deeper hole for yourself") is so widespread as to serve as a generalizable cautionary tale, I would assume there would be plenty of examples. Is Eichenwald's story the best one you can think of?

The Hentai tab is not relevant to the authenticity of the flyer.

The flyer is not relevant to the hentai tab, which was the example I was giving. Why are you trying to change it?

is so widespread as to serve as a generalizable cautionary tale.

I never said it's widespread. In fact, I think it's pretty rare, but it happens so it shouldn't be discounted.

I would assume there would be plenty of examples.

Why? The scenario we're discussing is when someone would end up looking bad by saying the truth, which means there's a lot of evidence that ends up being misleading. However often that happens, in order to show you an example of that, I'd need to find a sub-group of that scenario, where originally the evidence was strongly pointing one way, but it later was proven to be misleading, which is even more rare.

Which is why I asked you have you never been in that position? Has no one ever lied to others about you, and you were at least temporarily unable to prove they were lying?

Is Eichenwald's story the best one you can think of?

I could come up with one or two more if I jogged my memory, but before I do I want to make sure there's a point to that. Originally I thought you asked for an example because you didn't understand the type of scenario I'm talking about. This question makes it look like your questions are rhetorical. That you're not curious, but trying to win an argument.

I interpreted your response to my "why didn't Nixon say anything?" question to posit the theory that Nixon decided to stay quiet because he was concerned that his attempt to tell the truth would make it look like he's just digging his own hole further. My assumption is that he would only have this concern if there was a generalizable cautionary tale establishing it as a viable danger, otherwise why else would he preemptively decide to stay quiet?

Did I misunderstand your response?

Did I misunderstand your response?

I don't know. Your responses seem almost tailor-made to maximize misunderstanding, and I don't want to get into the weeds of what does you mean by "generalizable" or "viable".

Can we start with my original question, have you ever been in a situation like the one I described, or at least knew anyone that was? If not, do you see how in the Eichenwald example I gave telling the truth could make him look worse, if he didn't have supporting evidence?

Regarding your Eichenwald example, I realize now I misinterpreted "telling the truth" to refer to the authenticity of the anti-semitic flyer, rather than the reason for the Hentai tab.

Assuming the conversation with his wife actually happened but Eichenwald had no evidence to showcase, I would agree his explanation would sound suspicious. I don't think it would be an example of him digging a hole deeper though because I don't see anything immediately objectionable about "I know this is going to sound crazy and I can't prove it, but I really was having a conversation with my wife about tentacle porn."

Which gets to your assumption. The fact that he did post screenshots with his wife illustrates that even with something as banal as an errant Hentai tab, there's the possibility of circumstantial evidence out there somewhere. That's why the assumption of "Nixon uncovered who secretly assassinated JFK but has access to zero evidence" strikes me as too unrealistic to be worth entertaining.

Which gets to your assumption. The fact that he did post screenshots with his wife illustrates that even with something as banal as an errant Hentai tab, there's the possibility of circumstantial evidence out there somewhere.

Emphasis on "possibility". There's also the possibility that you will not have any evidence. And given that I was supposed to give an example of telling the truth making you look bad, I am somewhat limited to events that have been in some way confirmed to be true, no?

That's why the assumption of "Nixon uncovered who secretly assassinated JFK but has access to zero evidence" strikes me as too unrealistic to be worth entertaining.

It's not an assumption, it was a possible to answer to the question of "why wouldn't he say anything?".

This example was interesting as it involves Kurt Eichenwald, a notorious and well-documented pathological liar and fantasist.

Edited to add: as well as having a documented history as a pedophile, or as he would have it, a financial contributor to a major internet hub of pedophilic activity ("research").

What would he say,

He'd say who shot JFK, which the tucker clip claims he knew (??)?

why would anyone believe him

Lots of people would believe him without checking too much (tucker is without him saying anything!), and more competent people might be able to independently verify parts of it.

He'd say who shot JFK, which the tucker clip claims he knew (??)?

That's exactly the kind of thing I think would only make him look desperate and sad.

Assuming Nixon is a rational human being, he would have evidence for his belief. What prevented Nixon from presenting this evidence?

Not having access to it. Or part of the evidence being testimony from people no longer aligned with him.

  1. "Nixon did not have any special knowledge about who killed JFK"

  2. "Nixon knew who killed JFK, but didn't have access to this evidence or everyone he knew who could corroborate his knowledge refused to testify and he didn't tell this to the public/press because he was worried he would look crazy and he didn't confide to anyone to release after his death."

Do you believe that the second scenario is more plausible than the first? If so, what argument would you use to convince someone who disagrees?

Not saying it's more plausible, just that it shouldn't be dismissed.

If so, what argument would you use to convince someone who disagrees?

More evidence would have to come out in order for me to be able to make an argument like that.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats